mmr link

[Jimjams]

Read this if you dare.... lol

Again not sure if the link will work with the dashes so cut and paste.....

www.femail.co.uk/pages/standard/article.html?in_article_id=171347&in_page_id=169

Thanks for that Jimjams, I a believer in a link anyhow but it is something that I am always reassessing. What struck me is that if the Goverment took a gamble with the vaccine a few years ago what's to stop them doing the same now?

message withdrawn

yes it is in the Mail, but at least a journalist is beginning to ask some of the right questions.It is new because at last someone is pointing out that epidemiological studies are not going to answer the MMR question. I don't really go down the conspiracy theory road becuase I don't think you have to. The potential for corruption (strong word- I just mean putting profits before absolute safety) within the drugs world is so obvious that there's no mystery there. Personally I just think the D of H is incompetent.

link for part two.

Rosemary Kessick's a good woman! She's heavily involved in (started??) a charity called Allergy induced Autism which has helped me a lot in the past.

jimjams, did you see the coverage of the British Psychological society's meeting in the weekend papers re: autism having two separate genetic predispositions? interesting reading - lots of implications for research - & one of the authors is the v eminent Robert Plomin

I saw the Observer's hash of a story about it!! tSomeone I know contacted Roger Plomin (spelling??) and he replied saying he hadn't published anything yet but it sounds interesting.

Personally I still think they're all asking the wrong questions. I think we should be worrying about environmental triggers. For example some people have a genetic predisposition to lung cancer- but they may not get it without smoking. I'd prefer to see more research into triggers rather than genetics (and I have PhD in genetics). Trouble is nothing gets funded these days without the word genetics in the grant application. Sure I never used to be this cynical.

I agree re: triggers - but what I thought they were getting at were predispositions (as opposed to 'gene for' which you hear in soundbites so often - aaghhhh) which could then be set off by an environmental trigger. I know there's something like an 8:1 bias towards males being autistic and obviously that's genetic (!) and maybe there's something lurking in 'maleness' which responds in a particular way if a, b and c happen. I may have got Plomin's name wrong! I agree re: funding, but with all of this stuff now I know it speeds things up eg study families who have a preponderance to inheriting a tremor or whatever and then analyse what's different about them firstly in terms of genetics and then lifestyle.

True true, I tend to agree with all of that- it just seems to be a bit either/or. I read a good article on it in an autism magazine which put it a lot better than I can. Basically their point was that if you find the alleles involved- be it one two, three or more then you're still not preventing the damage in the first place. If they were looking to find- I don't know -say those with a genetic predisposition to say vaccine damage (!!!) so that they could avoid that trigger then I would be happier. As far as I've read genetic work in general though it seems to be "oh look these people with this gene/combination of genes has a predisposition to autism."

They think the male stuff may be to do with testosterone and there is a theory that too much testosterone in the womb pushes the developing embryo into autism.

The other thing that saddens me is there has been quite a lot of work done on triggers already- mostly ignored as the results aren't very popular. This research would be fairly easy to do - and the results could be used to identify families at risk (one big risk factor seems to be a high incidence of autoimmune diseases in the family history). This would yield useful results so much faster than the genetic route. I'm not anti the genetic studies- just wish other work was being done as well.

re: the maleness, I do know twin boys who are both on the autistic spectrum, but also know of others where only 1 affected..so obviously post-natal environment is the key there. obviously you can't prevent the damage if someone has all the alleles plus the triggers - but think about something as simple as anti-D for rhesus negative mums has turned things round for babies who just used to die in utero.I'm not saying it'll be that simple, but just understanding it has to help even if we cannot see the full picture right now.

That's true- and PKU is another example. I guess the thing that worries me is if there has been even half the increase in rate of autism suggested (and of course whether or not there has been an increase is another debate) then that obviously has nothing to do with genetics (the frequency of alleles won't have chnaged that quickly). It may be easier and quicker to look for the trigger first then worry about the genetics of the condition. I also have a suspicion that finding the genetic markers will lead to them saying "well yes of course your son has an ASD he has the genetic markers", rather than saying "he has the genetic markers and he came into contact with triggers x, y,z" Mind you I suspect I know the triggers in DS1's case and I've kept ds2 away from them anyway.

hi i was just wondering jimjams if u could give me the name of the autisim amgazine and where i would be able to get it from i didnt know there was one avaiable thank you

HI emma I subscribe to a couple. the first is "The Autism File" at www.autismfile.com They talk a lot about biomedical intervention which I find very useful. They're also very keen on ABA about which I have a lot of reservations, but still it's all interesting.

The other subscription is to Allergy Induced Autism- which produces a regular glossy magazine type newsletter. Again a lot of the articles are about biomedical intervention- but there's a great deal of emphasis on the gluten casein free diet. Their website is www.AutismMedical.com

Ok here goes I'll post the link

www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,960285,00.html

haven't read the original research, but from the paper's description it doesn't look that great (although no worse than say the Taylor et al paper which supposedly "proves" the safety of the MMR- although it does no such thing).

Hopefully it is more pressure to actually do the research which needs to be done- ie actually look at the damaged children, rather than ignore them, refuse them any medical treatment and hope they will go away.

If the govt really really really doesn't want to contemplate looking at theese children I have thought up a simple mass experiment they could do.

Put back age of administering MMR to 18 months (it works better then anyway)

Call all children for a CHAT test at 18 months (those geting MMR could have it on the same day). A CHAT test can be administered by a HV. It checks whether a child is a)pointing b)following a point and c) able to engage in very simple pretend play. It is an extremely useful tool for identifying children who are at risk of developing an autistic spectrum disorder.

The compare groups. Did more children pass the CHAT test then regress following MMR, or are the numbers the same in the single jabs and no vaccinations group?

It would leave open many questions, but it might specifically answer the MMR question.

If they didn't want to put back the MMR administration date most normally developing children should pass the CHAT test by 15 monthsish anyway.